Is there a future for the GOP?

I've said elsewhere that this was probably the last election where the Republicans stood a real chance of gaining the American Presidency with a program that mainly appeals to prosperous suburban whites and holds little appeal to most women and almost no appeal at all to racial minorities.

If the GOP is to survive, what do you think it would have to look like? What could it possibly look like?

Replies to This Discussion

Why would they? I would guesstimate that at least 90% of the people who vote are religious and maybe 50% of those deeply religious. There's also plenty of religion among minorities and women, which means that there's substantial gain to be party most closely aligned with religious values.

@Arcus I think the religious arena in the USA has been sub-sectioned so much, that its hard to align yourself to one without alienating the rest. The Mormon declaration of affiliation didn't help, there. It would be good to have neither party affiliated with any religion. That would be a giant leap for mankind in the USA.

Just imagine if you were voting for real opinions on current affairs and the vision for hope in this life, rather than a fuzzy promise of joy in the next. That would indeed be progress.

The number of 'religiously unaffiliated' Americans is increasing rapidly, up almost 25% in the last five years alone. It's about 1 in 5 overall, but among adults under 30, it's about 1 in 3. So there's a growing disadvantage to a strong association with religion as well.

I specifically said "voters". Turnout among those under 30 is usually below 50%, and thus constitute less than 10% of all votes cast, and these have been leaning quite democratic anyway the last 20 years.

Religiously unaffiliated is not the same as non-religious. Atheist and agnostics constitute less than 6%, and I'm fairly sure they are a lock for the Democrats and considered as not worth it by the Republicans. I can understand their point when 94% are religious to some extent..

Besides, even assuming your guess is correct, and 'under 30' voters comprise 'less than 10%' of all voters, that's not exactly an insignificant number. Just four presidential elections since 1940 were decided by more than 10%. Obama won by 2.3% yesterday, the latest of the last seven consecutive presidential elections that were decided by single-digit margins.

How is 'religiously unaffiliated' different than 'non-religious' in any way that makes a substantial difference to the GOP? Look at Mitt Romney's struggle to appeal to evangelical Christians, who were blacklisting Mormons as cultists as recently as last week. How could the GOP possibly select a religious candidate that appeals to that base and the 'religiously unaffiliated' alike?

No matter what we call it-- atheism, agnosticism, unaffiliated, non-religious-- the point is that the ranks of the 'not-with-a-proper-religion' are growing, and that shrinks the number of future voters who will identify strongly with an overtly Christian-oriented GOP candidate. That suits me just fine.

"[Democratic] party strategists noted that people younger than 30 made up a larger share of the electorate than those 65 and older, further enhancing what they see as a generational shift in their direction."

So the 'under 30' population is not only democratic-leaning, it's also becoming less religious, and voting in greater numbers than before.

It's not going to take 20 years for the GOP's future to arrive. The 'under 30' voters already make an impact in numbers that exceed the victory margins of the last seven presidential elections.

Moreover, in four years, during the 2016 presidential election, 33% of today's 'under 30' voters will be 'over 30' voters. In eight years, it'll be 66%. Meanwhile, if the trend of the last 5 years continues, the new 'under 30' voting generations will become progressively less religious.

I find that an encouraging thought. Don't you?

@Unseen

If by 'human nature' in this context you really mean 'the statistical religious characteristics of American voters' then yes, you're probably right.

You are talking about voters which don't exist and which may or may not exist in the future. It tends to be a good idea to analyze that which is, and not make wild guesses as to the makeup of an imagined electorate.

While they will indeed have aged, they will still be a vanishingly small part of the total, even though it may rise from ~8% to ~13%. The bulk of voters will still be the 60+ gang, which is currently being filled by the boomer ranks. It would be nice if the average American voter gained a few notches on the IQ scale and found an opinion volume button, but I hardly expect it to happen. It's not like the Clinton years were the model of sanity either.